This paper focuses on exploring the Hong Kong"s Linguistic Nationalism and localist linguistics movements, including First "Chinese" Movement from 1967 to 1970, Second "Chinese" Movement in 1978 in Hong Kong British- Colonial Governance and Anti-Putonghua, and Pro-Cantonese Movement from 2008 in HKSAR governance.
"This is the first textbook on the linguistic relativity hypothesis, presenting it in user-friendly language, yet analyzing all its premises in systematic ways. The hypothesis claims that there is an intrinsic interconnection between thought, language, and society. All technical terms are explained and a glossary at the back is provided. The book looks at the history and versions of the hypothesis, including the research paradigms and critiques that this notion has generated. It describes work on testing its validity in various domains, from grammar to discourse and artificial languages. It also extends the notion to other forms of relativity, from semiotic relativity to discursive relativity. Overall, it presents a comprehensive overview of the hypothesis, with pedagogical activities in each chapter, including questions for discussion and practical exercises on various notions. The book also examines the hypothesis as a foundational notion for the establishment of linguistic anthropology. This essential course text inspires creative, informed dialogue and debate for students of anthropology, linguistics, cultural studies, cognitive science, and psychology"--
AbstractThis paper develops a concept of relational linguistic continuity as a new basis to defend the right to linguistic survival. Relational linguistic continuity refers to a condition whereby individuals may continuously form human relations and have social interactions with others with whom they share the language of origin or of socialisation. The paper proceeds as follows. Section 2 critically engages with two distinct arguments that tackle the issue of linguistic survival: one based on equality of autonomy and another based on equality of dignity. Then, I point out that both arguments are insufficient for a full‐fledged defence of linguistic survival. Section 3 develops a concept of relational linguistic continuity. I first introduce the seminal idea of linguistic security proposed by Leslie Green and Denise Réaume, which will be critically revised in order to develop my concept of relational linguistic continuity. I conclude with Section 4 by defending the right to linguistic survival and addressing potential criticisms. I argue that my concept of relational linguistic continuity successfully provides a basis to defend the right to linguistic survival.
Acknowledgements -- Linguistic imperialism: an introductory encyclopedia entry -- 1. The study of continued linguistic imperialism -- 2. English in the new world order: variations on a theme of linguistic imperialism and 'world' English -- 3. Language policy and linguistic imperialism -- 4. Linguistic imperialism: a conspiracy, or a conspiracy of silence? -- 5. English, no longer a foreign language in Europe? -- 6. The linguistic imperialism of neoliberal empire -- 7. Lingua franca or Lingua frankensteinia? English in European integration and globalisation -- 8. English in higher education, panacea or pandemic? -- Book reviews -- Index
Abstract Although "crossing" as a new concept comes from Rampton's seminal work, this article argues that crossing defines linguistic communication in a perspective of process, act, and especially change. As a controlling principle for linguistic communication, it might be in a different way complementary to Husserl's shared sense, Habermas's reaching understanding, and Searle's shared intentionality. Crossing denotes changes in phase, sphere, and universe, characterizing the process of communication and having a meaningful value for continuing interpersonal relationship and reinforcing communicative competence. Crossing is also constitutive of communicative order both in monolingual contexts and in superdiversity multilingual settings. Against the backdrop of globalization, a new communicative order is being shaped in the reality of mobility and diversity. This new order of linguistic communication is characterized by dramatic code-switching, rhetorical mirror effect, and focus on linguistic medium. The mobility of human resources requires crossing to take creative strategies to achieve what monolingual crossing could not.
Social workers may encounter three linguistic problem areas during interviews—language differences, labeling, and the clients' inability to articulate concerns
Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. John J. Gumperz and Stephen C. Levinson. eds. Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language, 17. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. 488 pp.
International audience This paper mainly focuses on the commitment of some Prague Linguistic Circle members (Mathesius, Havránek, Jakobson, Weingart, Mukařovský) during the years between the Two World Wars. The author particularly draws attention to their reactions to the purists' aggressive views published in the review Našeřeč and to the "1932 theses" (the principles according to which language should have been treated) they formulated in addition. ; Savina Raynaud est professeur de philosophie du langage à l'Université Catholique de Milan. Ses travaux portent sur la philosophie du langage, la sémantique, l'histoire et l'épistémologie des théories linguistiques. Dernière publication (2014) : « Un objet bipolaire, des épistémologies imbriquées. Langues et langage face aux techniques, aux arts, aux sciences, à la philosophie », in Les sciences du langage en Europe, Actes du colloque 2011 de l'ASL, Limoges, Lambert Lucas, p. 23-40 [ http://hdl/handle.net/10807/53738 ]. - Savina Raynaud is professor at the Catholic University of Milan. Her works are about Philosophy of language, Semantics, History and Epistemology of linguistic theories. Last publication (2014): "Un objet bipolaire, des épistémologies imbriquées. Langues et langage face aux techniques, aux arts, aux sciences, à la philosophie", in Les sciences du langage en Europe, Actes du colloque 2011 de l'ASL, Limoges, Lambert Lucas, p. 23-40 [ http://hdl/handle.net/10807/53738 ]. Le présent article traite de l'engagement de certains membres du Cercle Linguistique de Prague (Mathesius, Havránek, Jakobson, Weingart, Mukařovský) durant l'entre-deux-guerres. L'auteur attire particulièrement l'attention sur les réactions de ces membres aux thèses agressives publiées par des puristes dans la revue Našeřeč, ainsi que sur les « thèses de 1932 » (les principes selon lesquels la langue aurait dû être traitée) qu'ils formulèrent par ailleurs.
Particularly in societies built on ethnic foundations and where nationalism has been decisive for social cohesion, language is one of the strongest traits of identity. One of the most important traits of Romanianness – nationality – with its functional counterpart, i.e. Romanian as a national language, represents the core value around which other identity components gravitate. In this study I will show in general and in essential terms how it has come to linguistic Romanianness.
Communication problems in post‐industrial society are seen to arise from two interacting factors: cultural differences and differences between lay and technical languages. They are a necessary consequence of the loosening of social boundaries and increasing technological specialization. Thus, they cannot be attributed to cultural or cognitive deprivation. Linguistic anthropology can contribute to a general theory of communication which may re‐orient research paradigms and predict the social effect of the communication gap.
The development of nationalism during the past century and a half is increasingly recognized as one of the major phenomena calling for careful study by historians. To comprehend all the implications of this growth, the interrelations of the political, cultural and, in particular, linguistic forms of nationalism must be investigated. This is especially necessary in the case of separatist movements—the efforts of subject peoples to achieve political independence. The motives and aims of cultural and political nationalism are not always identical. The two may exist together or apart; they may develop coevally or one may precede the other. In parts of Switzerland and to some extent in Wales, cultural and linguistic distinctness and homogeneity endure without political separation. When separatist forces, both political and cultural, develop coincidentally, the question arises as to the relative strength of the two factors. In the case of the modern Irish state, now scarcely twenty years old, a common culture existed long before political statehood established itself. It was partly because of the reëmphasis early in this century upon Ireland's ancient civilization, a civilization which included a different language, that sympathy for her political aspirations was aroused. Ireland's consciousness of her Gaelic past, her golden age, survived six centuries of assault when she was deprived of political power. In the knowledge of distinctive speech of her own, in the remembrance of cultural preeminence during Europe's Dark Ages, and in the possession of tangible relics, the Irish people kept alive their sense of unity after repeated rebellions failed.
What is it? Decolonising the languages curriculum is a radical requirement to critically re-examine the way in which the languages curriculum has been formed in any context. It requires the examination of the power dynamics which have led to the dominance of certain languages over others and which languages are and are not accorded resources in schools, universities, and colleges by the state, by the military, by community programmes, and in families. Decolonising the languages curriculum requires what is known as a phenomenological double break.
